- From: Simon Harper <simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 08:00:06 +0100
- To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
- CC: UAWG list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Hi Jan, So let me try and simplify: 1) I think 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 are redundant - no one will implement them at AAA, and technology isn't really good enough just yet; but we should present the information we have (the information we would have to present to the computational algorithm for it to try and repair) to the user. 2) lets remove both 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. 3) 1.2.4 seems good but needs extending with the remnants of 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 so that it presents the information (the information we would have to present to the computational algorithm - 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 - for it to try and repair) too. 4) 1.2.3 is aspirational and seems OK - it's not much possible right now but we've agreed it so it's fine. I think 1.2.3 gets applied first and then (1.2.1+.2+.4) my suggestion when 1.2.3 fails. I'd also say my suggestion could be applied in the case of a missing association too - in that we recognize something is missing, the user is notified, if they ask for it the (form field, say) information is provided to them. Does this clarify? Si. PS I check my email at 08:00 and 17:00 GMT. If you require a faster response please include the word 'fast' in the subject line. ======================= Simon Harper http://simon.harper.name/about/card/ University of Manchester (UK) Web Ergonomics Lab - Information Management Group http://wel.cs.manchester.ac.uk On 10/04/12 18:55, Richards, Jan wrote: > Hi Simon, > > There is a lot going on in your message. Can you please list all of the success criteria that would be present in your rewording of Guideline 1.2? > > Thanks, > Jan >
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 07:00:38 UTC